MBT vs C4

Therefore infantry should not have any firearms if they carry C4 or a bazooka following this logic.
One guy plants C4, the other guy covers, and if the person with C4 prefers to go alone (or has a buddy with a bazooka), he (they) should be defenseless against infantry.

Many modern tanks have a 3 man crew, some have a 4 man crew. 5 man crews existed up to maybe the 1950's (M47 Patton).
There are prototypes where 2 people run an armored fighting vehicle, and I've seen an armored car where the driver could operate the remote control machine gun.

In most Western tanks killing crews is something really tough to do, even an ammo explosion in an Abrams or Leclerc will not kill the crew.
Even Soviet tanks that had ammo laying around on the floor very often had 1-2 crew surviving out of 3-4 during the Cold War conflicts they were used in.

About the resource cost and availability- an infantry player can potentially have 47 bricks of C4 available (40 in stock, 7 more from the 750 RU), while a tanker can only have 1 MBT.
C4 is relatively cheap/expendable.

PS1 had 5 minute timers and no resources from what I know.

C4 only costs those resources if the defenders of the tank kill the guy after he plants the explosives and then make sure nobody shoots them until the attacker respawns.
It's not like they're lost every time the person carrying them gets shot.

There is a direct counter to C4 from a tank perspective, you have to equip AI secondary and scout for LA. Easy as that, you have a secondary light weapon specifically for taking down light threads in immediate vicinity.

Your issue is using the halberd. You chose AV for your secondary so you don't get the luxury of crying when infantry kill you.

You'll also have to see perspective to though: further nerfing C4 will make an already unpopular class see less playtime. With the removal of sunderer burning from C4 MBT C4ing is one of the only strong points of the LA class.

As for cert cost - the KDR potential of the MBT is second to none right now, even extremely cowardly ESF pilots can't top 50+ KDR (those who log out and never fight anyone who can fight back). If that isn't rewarding enough then I don't know what will be.

Then tanks should have either armor or firepower. This argument makes no sense, the C4 is the utility of the LA, arguing that LA should have C4 or weapons is like arguing that medics should have their tool or the AR.

Are we back to RL arguments? Then give me the price of the tanks in question and give me the price and people requirements for the counters for said tanks.

C4 never guarantees a kill, in fact looking at most presented statistics shows that 1/3 will succeed (in amount of bricks, so you get shot down often after placing one as well). The tank purchase guarantees you a tank and a tank will almost always yield you a positive KDR.

The killing of the LA after he placed C4 happens a lot. And I mean all the time. I routinely shoot down LA attacking our sundy, because the detonation delay is so long. And in PS1, you had a big cost in "certs" which were limited, you had to be of a certain level and even then you could just drive it. You still needed a main gunner.

Javelin Missile:
$78,000 (missile); $126,000 (reusable Command Launch Unit) (2002) [wikipedia]
Crew of 2

Abrams tank:
US$6.21 million (M1A2 / FY99) Estimated in 2012 as US$8.58 million (with inflation adjustment) [wikipedia]; ammo for the main gun comes at $8 508 a pop (M829A3 APFSDS) from what internet legends say.
Crew of 4

last time i checked you cant fire while you have C4 out.

A tank is effective killing machine without any certs being put into it. putting certs into it makes it more effective. you dont need to place certs into it to spawn it.

like i asked earlier if LA with C4 are the easiest and skilless way of destroying tank then what are you people using tanks for? because if its that easy to use LA to kill a tank then surely you would use LA and C4 to kill tanks rather than a tank, so what are you using your tanks for?

Maneuver warfare.

Your 'direct counter' requires a second person and certing into a second weapon (on top of the required proximity radar cert outlay), c4 does not require a second person.

Change c4 so that it does, ie if 2 bricks of c4 causes only critical damage then you need a second person (with AV or more C4) in order to kill the tank, then it becomes more balanced.

do stock tanks no-longer come with a secondary weapon that damages both vehicles and infantry? or the ability for player to change seats?

flashes are viable forms for maneuver warfare

You still need a second person, c4 you do not it is a solo instagib weapon and this is the crux of the imbalance a single player with c4 can instagib a tank, the default top gun rarely instagibs the c4 user and requires a second person to use it.

I cannot understand the resistance from many of you to wishing to balance out these a little. I am not asking for tanks to be immune to c4 i am simply requesting that it should take more than one player to take out a tank when c4 is involved. If c4 took a tank to critical damage then the tank to all intents and purposes is disabled until it is repaired. This requires your team (or at least one other player with c4/av) to hone in on the tank to finish it off, combined arms and still considerably less cert and resource cost than the tank.

so you cant switch to the secondary gun when you are the only person in the tank?

Combined with the AV turret they're pretty much tank substitutes in a some situations.

That combo lacks staying power though.

Not if i want the tank to live. A stationary tank in the current state of play is a dead tank. Does c4 require the LA to become completely stationary to deploy it ?

Which is why the MBT has exponentially more killing power and is listed as a crewed vehicle. Using a 1/2 MBT is like not buying C4 for resources, it works but you will be severely gimped and you have to live with that.

Thanks. If a 350 resource MBT would be the standard, C4 should "realistically" cost 2,2 resources a piece.

so what you are saying that your 450 resources of stock tank not only gives you endless resource destroying ability, but also mobility and staying power and invulnerability for small arms fire.

on the flip side 200 resources and 200 certs of c4 only allows the user to destroy 600 resources.

....And do absolutely NO damage to armor?? deal!!

No, the comparison was RL cost to a tank vs RL cost to a tank countermeasure.
If we are to entertain RL examples, then the counter would cost 1 / 78th of the tank. And still do 100% damage to target.

And by that logic. The tank would be doing 10m of lethal blast damage per shot from over 2km away.

Don't bring realism into balance discussion. It is not in favor of infantry.

takes 6 seconds to deploy two c4 and successfully detonate it

Wait, am I getting this right?, using C4 on a tank is a "realistic" countermeasure now?

I'm not saying that, but people argue with "Its a friggin tank" and "it SHOULD be doing blah blah". My argument is simply that if you want realism then infantry will get 2 resource C4 and the tank will easily be disabled and shot down without a bunch of support.

My argument is against realism. Balance wise the MBT is a 1 or 2 person vehicle, period. Just like a harasser has to beat a lightning - because two man vehicles should beat one manned ones. Regardless of them being buggies or tanks or whatever.

And adding to that, the second least class is the counter of the MBT IF they don't have a decent gunner and if they don't have decent AI secondaries. Thats the way it is, and thats fine imo.


as a tidbit: realism would favor infantry because realistically you would never have even a fraction of the tanks we have now. Tanks are expensive and rare on the battlefield compared to infantry. Number : power.

Its the future. Nanites, whatever. Call it a tomahawk charge.
The point was the fair cost of counter vs tank based on real life prices. What you call it is irellevant because we're far into the future with aliens, invisibility and immortality.